Regardless, it's a moot point, because the way the KC-X RFP is now written, the award will go to Boeing, and NG-EADS may not even bother bidding.
Interesting tidbit: Boeing has never, in it's history, won a tanker competition with the USAF. The KB-29, KB-50, KC-97 and KC-135 were sole sourced to Boeing. McDonnell Douglas' KC-10 beat Boeing's KC-747 offering in the Advanced Tanker Cargo Aircraft competition, and the KC-767AT lost to NG-EADS' KC-30. in the last KC-X competition.
Looks like Boeing will win through a de facto sole source contract yet again. Nothing wrong with that, mind you. I like Boeing. But I do think the larger capacity and greater range of the A330 is going to come in handy in any future conflict in the Pacific against our Walmart supplier.
To: Yo-Yo
“The burn rate isn’t that dramatically different with equal loads. Why do you think the A330 decimated civil 767 sales? Because it has a lower seat-mile cost. Fly both of the aircraft empty, and sure the Boeing costs less. Fly them both at 200,000 lbs of fuel, and they’re close enough to being equal. Fly them both with 240,000 lbs of fuel, and - oh wait, the Boeing can’t hold 240,000 lbs of fuel.”
Yo-Yo, the USAF is not interested in seat-mile cost because the KC-X is not being chosen for its passenger carrying ability. The A330 burns 20-25% more fuel than a 767. Load an A330 with 240,000 lbs of fuel and a 767 with 200,000 lbs of fuel, then have both of them fly the same 6,500 NM route carrying the same load and guess what both will land with almost the same amount of fuel. Why/how? With 240,000 lbs of fuel an A330 can fly with 6,750NM while the 767 with 200,000 lbs of fuel can fly 6,590NM.
“Yes, there is no getting around the fact that the A330 would take more ramp space and larger hanger space than the 767.”
Correct, an A330 is 55% larger than a 767. Compared to the KC-135, the plane that KC-X will replace, the 767 is 24% larger (for a 5-10% increase in fuel capability), while the A330 is 78% larger (for a 25% increase in fuel capability).
“However, in forward airbases, the A330 can operate out of shorter fields while delivering the same amount of fuel as the 767. When operating in a combat environment, the A330 can carry and deliver more fuel, and stay on station longer, so fewer sorties will be required to deliver the same amount of fuel, an overall savings in time and number of aircraft required for the mission.”
Yo-Yo, think about it, at a forward airbase you are not going to have a large amount of ramp space. The A330 requires 55% more ramp space than a 767, meaning you can park three 767 on the same amount of ramp space that you can park two A330. Two A330 tankers can carry 490,000 lbs of fuel while three 767 tankers can carry over 600,000 lbs of fuel. The A330 can carry more fuel but the longer it stay on station the less fuel it can give away. Taking off with 240,000 lbs of fuel, one hour later an A330 would have 37,000 more fuel than a 767, but after 8 hours (typical tanker missions last 6-8 hours) that number drops to 17,000 lbs more fuel. Why? Because the A330 is 55% bigger, weighs 65,000 lbs more and burn 2,700 to 3,000 lbs of fuel more per hour than a 767.
“Interesting tidbit: Boeing has never, in it’s history, won a tanker competition with the USAF. The KB-29, KB-50, KC-97 and KC-135 were sole sourced to Boeing. McDonnell Douglas’ KC-10 beat Boeing’s KC-747 offering in the Advanced Tanker Cargo Aircraft competition, and the KC-767AT lost to NG-EADS’ KC-30. in the last KC-X competition.”
Yo-Yo, do some research, Yes the KB-29 & KB-50 were selected without competition, Why? Because the USAF had hundreds of B-29 & B-50 already flying and the KB-29 & KB-50 were conversions of existing B-29 & B-50. Boeing lost the original KC-135 selection to the Douglas DC-8, the DC-8 based proposal was better than the 707 based Boeing tanker. Unfortunately for Douglas, the DC-8 tanker was still on the drawing board, the USAF ordered 29 KC-135A as interim tankers, pending delivery of the DC-8 based tanker, due to development & production delays the USAF ordered additional KC-135 from Boeing and later cancelled the DC-8 tanker.
Regarding the previous KC-X selection, Yes the EADS KC-30 was selected BUT as the GAO discovered during its investigation there was a pattern of bias in the way the competition was conducted to include the addition of new scoring criteria after the proposals were submitted, improper communications between the Air Force and the Northrop Grumman-led team, the use of erroneous data on past performance and vehicle costs, and changing the weights assigned to certain factors after the proposals were received. These were not faux pas but major errors that bordered on criminal behavior. In plain English the USAF conducted an incompetent, unprofessional source selection. That’s why a second round was required — to fix all the problems arising out of the first round.